The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

he prefers the more accurate wooden style!

 

The 84 translated sarx as "flesh all of the day" you say. What does that mean?

The 2011 edition used flesh a lot more than the 84 version did.

 

I think they also used Sarx in more than just translating it always as "flesh"

 

Can you speak plainly please?

Who are you referencing as they?

 

2011 Niv translators

 

Make complete sentences, that makes it less difficult to understand what you are trying to convey.

The 2011 edition used the word flesh a lot more in translating sarx than the 84 edition. Do you understand?

 

You just stated what I said before!

 

Lest this go without saying....
There is no perfect translation method.
Different methods bring out the many varying aspects of a text
So learn the basics of a language and use multiple translations.

Read and become familiar with the preface of each of your translations.
The preface describes the sources and methods of translation.

If you think your favorite traditional text is flawless you are wrong.
Both the Majority text and the Critical texts are conglomerate, drawn from numerous ancient hand written manuscripts.

COMPARE versions, NOTICE differences, SEARCH for the reason they are different

Each major version today is more accurate than the translations Jesus and the apostles used. Minor differences are not heresies but are a chance to learn another’s viewpoint.

Rob

 

You don't have a stilted or wooden style. It's littered with poor grammar, and permeated with thought disorder and laziness.

 

But accuracy does not = awkwardness of expression.

 

Far from it. Your "English" has to go through several layers of translation, because you don't have the desire to express yourself clearly.

 

No English words whatsoever appear in the Greek text. That's why it's Greek.

You obviously think that only words that appear in brackets in the NKJ have no direct equivalents in English.

You're wrong of course. The meaning has to be expressed in many places with no one to one correspondence. That means that many more brackets would need to be added creating an optical nightmare as I have often said.

Some other translations that have what is said : ESV, NRSV, CEB, ISV, Mounce, NET and NLT.

Nonsense. The meaning comes across loud and clear.

What is your problem? What practical difference is there between He and He Himself? That's right, nothing. Other translation that render it as He, not He Himself : ASV, Darby, ESV, NRSV, ISV, LEB, MEV, Mounce and WEB. Are you also going to charge them being unsatisfactory? Get over it.

More nonsense coming from your keystrokes saying hilasmos has to be "properly translated as propitiation."

No, that word is not sacrosanct. It can be expressed in various ways, and all have their limitations.

However, atoning sacrifice is also used in this verse in the ISV, NET, NRSV, MEV and WEB. The last two are favored among your crowd.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Even worse is when the translators decide that the concept of propitiation is not in the Bible, too barbaric, makes God cruel to Jesus, so change it to Expiate as in NEB, or altogether out, as in NLT!

 

His viewpoint in regards to the Niv at times seems to borders on NIVO!
As he has belittles the Kjv, and as stated that Esv/Nkjv worse than the Niv 2011, and whenever complaints against Niv given, just disregards as one not knowing the issues, stuck in the past, or believing in the fake Christian feminism movement behind Niv 2011!

 

That's stupid thing and sinful thing to say. But that is your style.

That's true. That word is not absolutely necessary, since most do not understand it anyway.

A sincere student of the Word will seek out the meaning of passages such as Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 Jn. 2:2 and 1 Jn. 4:10. Leon Morris. is one of the best on the subject.

 

Hey pot!

 

Listen, why can't you try to tell the truth every so often? Is it that hard?

The LEB, Darby, WEB, NET, Mounce, NLT,NIV, RSV, MEV,NRSV and CSB all do not have the word propitiation in some of the four passages that do have it in the NASB and NLKJ.

It's not as if the translators of these eleven versions do not believe in the concept of propitiation or believe that it makes it would make God seem to cruel to Jesus. It's that the translators wanted to communicate meaning to the reader. No one word or groups of words may satisfactorily explain what happened on this transaction of the cross. All English words will miss the mark. Unless you would prefer and expanded translation that the NCV has --all English versions will come up short in this respect.